In the wake of Evan Bayh’s announcement this past week of his decision not to seek reelection to the Quayle seat in the U.S. Senate, there has been much hand-wringing in the mainstream media about how “ungovernable” America has become. The president, you see, can’t get his agenda through Congress despite super-duper majorities in both Houses.  The opposing party just won’t cooperate.

Well, just about four years ago, another president couldn’t get his agenda through Congress–and we didn’t see similar hand-wringing in the media. Those today calling the filibuster an affront to democracy (or some such) were once calling it an indispensable tool to protect the Constitution (or some such).

One of my favorite blogresses, Jennifer Rubin, has been all over this. On Wednesday, she wrote:

. . . liberals can’t accept the underlying message — that Obama and the Democratic leadership have failed to govern and are chasing moderates out of the party. So the battle is on to make this about the “system” or “partisanship” — floating and amorphous defects untraceable to Obama or any particular Democratic leader.

Can’t these guys just admit defeat?

Yesterday, Rubin built on this notion:

Democrats have two excuses for what has gone so terribly wrong in the last year. The first is the “America is ungovernable” meme. Well, it has been impossible to govern from the Left, certainly. But we have yet to see evidence that a Centrist agenda, fiscal restraint, and pro-growth policies don’t work or can’t pass. Maybe Obama-Reid-Pelosi aren’t capable of formulating or passing broadly popular proposals, but that is different from claiming that there is something broken in our constitutional system or political culture.

America is not ungovernable; Americans just don’t want to be governed from the left.

UPDATE:  Seems Rubin isn’t the only one offering this hypothesis.  Via Instapundit, we get this from George Will, “[W]ith metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments have one thing in common: The Left is having trouble enacting its agenda.”

One of the oldest arguments regarding homosexuality is whether or not we’re “born with it“. As a rule, I don’t wade into that discussion. But what has always intrigued me is a corollary I’ve postulated, Are gay men and lesbians predisposed to being Leftists? Almost more prevelant than the cliche that we’re all a bunch of effeminate (or butch, for you gals) promiscuous drug addicts who love dance music is the conventional wisdom that we’re all Leftists.

But something struck me just now while watching this video, which puts the lie to the Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo narrative that the Tea Party movement is populated by nothing more than an assortment of your average mouth-breathing red-neck racists angry simply that a black man would ever attain our Nation’s highest office. (This video clip features a parade of black folks not only participating in, but speaking at and leading various Tea Party events.)

That, in addition to Bruce’s experiences at and reflections on the CPAC event in DC this past week got me to thinking: Why hasn’t the gay community embraced the Tea Party movement?

The long-and-short of the Tea Party thesis is simply smaller government, lower taxes, and greater liberty and freedom. (Or, if you’re a detractor, that’s the insincere veneer painted on the group to hide the actual motives described by the MSNBC crowd noted above–more on that in a minute.)

Given that we demographically are more likely to have more disposable income and own our own businesses, it’s understandable that the gay community should be first in line to pull the lever for tax-cutting, regulation-reducing, and business-encouraging political candidates. Insofar as the gay Left in America has sold the gay and lesbian community’s interests out for the sake of electing socialists and statists and, simply, Democrats, who are all opposed to the very types of market-friendly policies that would benefit us, we surely should be (if we’re as smart as we like to say we are) in the market for better representation.

(more…)

On Saturday, I had the pleasure of being interviewed by the CPAC Blogger of the Year, Ed Morrissey on his live broadcast from the Blogger’s Lounge.

Here is the video. I’m anxious for your thoughts.

Friends and foes alike.  I’m regularly asked the ignorant, biased-laden question:  How can you possibly be gay and a conservative (or Republican).

Aside from my believing in First Principles trump everything (Declaration of Independence and US Constitution as foundational documents) and my rejection of identity politics, it is my strong belief in America’s individual liberty and freedom and free enterprise that makes me a conservative.

But watch this video.  It is former Ohio Rep. Bob McEwen “speaking at CPAC 2010 where he delivered an outstanding presentation on Basic Economics and why Free Market Principles are essential to maintaining prosperity and freedom in America. He does a truly outstanding job, and explains it in language anyone can understand.” (Thanks to Freedom’s Lighthouse for the video).

By showing this video, I will no longer be answering the previous referenced question.  If you don’t have the time to watch this, I will not have the time to discuss my political philosophy with you.

That is why THIS is the most important video I’ve ever posted. McEwen is a rock star. Thank you, sir.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GayPatriot readers, let me introduce you to Alexander McCobin from Students For Liberty.  Alexander was one of the student activists who spoke from the main CPAC stage yesterday.  He spoke up IN FAVOR of CPAC’s including GOProud BEFORE Ryan Sorba’s tirade a few minutes later.

THIS IS THE PART OF THE STORY THAT HASN’T BEEN TOLD YET.

UPDATE at 5:00PM – I’ve learned a couple of important facts that shed some more light on this whole incident. First, folks have emailed pointing out that there were boos when Alexander spoke (see video) below. But the boos were quickly and resoundingly overtaken by applause. Secondly, the booing was started by none other than Ryan Sorba and it is quite possible he was THE ONLY one booing since he was onstage and near a microphone.

From Students For Liberty on the CPAC kerfuffle:

Background: http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-causes-cpac-controversy/
Videos: http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-controversy-video/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/studentsforliberty

Secondly, I have found out that Ryan’s outburst was a publicity stunt. Ryan is hawking a new book called “The ‘Born Gay’ Myth”. That pretty much speaks for itself and the CPAC crowd rejected Ryan’s message and tactics resoundingly.

The first video is Alexander’s remarks yesterday.

The second video is my interview with Alexander this morning.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Yesterday, while reviewing countless scholarly articles for my dissertation, I frequently encountered references to homosexual liaisons in ancient Greece, most of these taking place in the Archaic and early Classical Age, just as Greece was preparing to defeat the Persians and “define” Western Civilization.

These references reminded me how regularly I came across such homosexual hanky-panky in studying Roman history in the era preceding its imperial greatness. And I thought of all the times I had read or heard certain extreme social conservatives attribute social acceptance of homosexuality as signaling the fall of these great civilizations.

So, I wondered, I mean, if homosexuality was the cause of their decline, why didn’t these civilizations fall sooner when homosexuality was more prevalent. And how the heck did they rise in the first place if they had been so accepting of homosexuality?

By their (extreme social conservatives’) logic then, homosexuality contributed to the rise of these civilizations . Now, I don’t think homosexuality alone led to the rise of Greece and Rome, but do find it interesting that they rose to greatness while tolerant of expressions of homosexuality even if they didn’t accord same-sex relationships the same status as they accorded to different-sex ones.

News reports are coming out that General Alexander Haig has died.  Haig was a central figure in American life in my formative years.  Hate him or love him, Haig was a powerful voice for America and American values.

Alexander Haig, the former military officer, secretary of state and adviser to presidents, died Saturday, a Johns Hopkins Medical Center spokesman said.

Haig, 85, was admitted to the Baltimore, Maryland, hospital on January 28, hospital spokesman Gary Stephenson said.

Haig was a top official in the administrations of three presidents — Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan.

Haig became supreme allied commander over NATO forces in Europe until 1979. Haig ran an unsuccessful bid for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination.

Alexander Meigs Haig Jr. was born December 2, 1924, in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. He attended the University of Notre Dame for two years before transferring to the U.S. Military Academy in 1944. After his graduation in 1947, he served in Japan. He later served under Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s staff in Japan during the Korean War.

RIP Alexander Haig.

LIVE VIDEO FEED FROM CPAC

Good morning America… from your Nation’s capital.  The CPAC10 Conference is already underway and I’ll do my best to hit the highlights.

PJTV rockstar and comedian Steven Crowder got the crowd going already with a quick set of barbs against the Powers That Be, and Olbermann.

UPDATE: Looks like we have some work to do with Rick Santorum on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  However, I know Santorum personally and have worked with him for many years (in my other job) and I know he is a good man.  He is not homophobic but he does have concerns about using the military being used for social experiments and subject to political correctness.  I think he’s wrong.  But that DOES NOT make him homophobic.

But Santorum did just say that the idea of an IRS audit each year for every member of Congress was a good idea.  You have to balance the good with the bad! 

NOTE: I would like to mention that the applause on Santorum’s DADT response was tepid at best.  Honestly.  DADT splits free-thinking people on the left and the right and in the military.  There will be a blogger meet & greet with Santorum in about an hour.  I’m hoping to talk with him personally.

UPDATE: Conservative babe and ACORN doorbuster Hannah Giles is now introducing Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart kicked butt.  He’s a great and motivating speaker.  Catch him if you can!

9:44AM: Okay, I’m back. You really all should follow me on Twitter, you know!  One of my conservative heroes — Jonah Goldberg — is now on the mainstage.  I once interviewed Jonah on the barely-used GayPatriot BlogTalkRadio program.  He’s discussing how fascism was born on the left political spectrum and how totalitarianism is still admired by American liberals.  Hey, someone should write a book about this!

Sometimes my best ideas for one chapter in my dissertation come when I’m working on another.  And so it is with blogging.  When I wrote about the Mt. Vernon Statement, I closed by saying that it lacked the Gipper’s poetry and ignored one of his primary arguments–that “government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.”

As I reviewed the document again Friday night, I noted while the authors mentioned the word, “government” thirteen times, modifying it more often than not with “self” and “limited,” the authors ignored the real problem facing the right, particularly the political party most associated with the right, the GOP. In the past decade, Republicans haven’t adhered to the principles of Ronald Reagan.

They haven’t always stood for limited government, indeed, have often sought to expand to the state even to address domestic issues.

So, as I was about to set off for a day of research unrelated to politics, it hit me how, I believe, they should have begun a document articulating conservative ideas in the post-George W. Bush Era:

Too often in the past twenty years, politicians of both parties have sought to solve our problems and improve our lives through the expansion of government. Some have even dressed up their big government proposals as some new-fangled form of conservatism.

We reject that approach.

And go from there to what we conservatives advocate.  There was much talk of liberty (mentioned four times) and “limited government,” but not even talk of the abuses and usurpations of government.

And it was the delineation of such abuses (and usurpations) that a certain Mr. T. Jefferson spelled out in a document explaining just why it was necessary for our people to dissolve those bonds which have connected them with another. The authors of the Mt. Vernon needed to similarly spell out the reasons which impelled them to craft this document.

It is the complicity of both parties in the burgeoning power of the state which provided that impetus.  And the authors of the Mt. Vernon Statement were not clear enough in saying as much.

Folks, I’m relegated to writing this from my iPhone. But it is big news and a huge topic tonight at CPAC.

Earlier today, during a student activist session on the CPAC main stage, one brave young man thanked the group for including GOProud as a sponsor this year.

A few minutes later, another student launched into an anti-gay tirade from the same podium. The CPAC attendees turned on him and booed him off-stage.

HotAir.com has the video on their front page. GP readers, if you could put some links in the comments — that would be great.

Today was a turning point for gays in the conservative movement. I’m so glad I am here to see it in person.

UPDATE (from Dan):  A friend linked me this post from Students For Liberty (maybe we should set up group, “Gays For Liberty”) on this matter.  Seems some left-wing bloggers are taking notice.  This is a big deal and shows that most mainstream conservatives don’t have much stomach for such nasty rhetoric.

Two important questions were asked of Rep. Pence.  First, the obvious — are you running for President.  Answer – No plans to, but focused on short-term goals — retaking the House and serving his constituents.  He did say late he hopes to serve Indiana in a broader role in the future.

Then @collegepolitico asked – “Will the GOP retake the House in 2010?”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Okay folks, this is one of the panels I’ve been waiting for.  John Fund from Wall Street Journal & author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy”; Anita MonCrief, former ACORN employee; David Norcross, Republican National Lawyers Association and moderator Cleta Mitchell from the American Conservative Union Foundation.

US Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is now speaking and introducing the panel.  Issa has been a leader exposing the insiduous influence on our electoral process that ACORN and other left-wing groups have had.

More to come as it happens….

Issa is still talking — about Obama agenda in general, the voter fraud stuff is still to come…

CPAC UNEXPECTED BULLETIN: US Rep. Mike Pence held a surprise bloggers’ press conference in the lounge.  The feed from the stage was stopped and I got some video & pics of Pence which I’ll post in a few minutes….

No open-minded person watching the current CPAC panel can say that conservatives do not seriously debate issues.  Former US Rep. Bob Barr and former Vietnamese refugee Viet Dinh (now professor at Georgetown University Law Center) have been going at it on the fundamental question of “Does Security Trump Freedom”?

I challenge any liberal group to honestly say that they would have such a robust debate in their echo chambers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Thanks for the embed code from @JamesRichardson!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Congrats to one of the best and nicest guys in the blogosphere.  I can’t imagine anyone more deserving.  And, he was introduced by Rush Limbaugh from behind the Golden EIB microphone via videolink.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan):  Bruce, there you go again, confusing me.  Now I’ve met Ed and agree he’s a super nice guy—and a great blogger to boot, well deserving of this honor, but you see, when I introduced myself to this right-wing hero, I identified our blog and it didn’t bother him (1) that I’m gay or (2) that I blog at a site for gay conservatives.  Not just that, Bruce, this fella defended the inclusion of GOProud at CPAC!  On his website–as a blogger–and these wing-nuts are honoring him?!?!?!?  What gives, Bruce?

Ugh. Frustrating Day Two.  My laptop isn’t working, my iPhone isn’t working and I overslept.  That all being said, I’m finally in Blogger’s Lounge and PatriotPartner is our “floor reporter” (photos to follow soon!).

I was interviewed this morning by National Journal on gay issues.  I think it came out well.  Time will tell, eh?

I did catch most all of Cong. Mike Pence’s speech about an hour ago.  Good stuff.  Jimmy LaSalvia (GOProud.org) and I disagree on Pence as Presidential material.  So I’ll have to see what Jimmy thought about Pence’s speech.

So far in Blogger’s Lounge — we’ve had a visit from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the FOX News crew who came by a few minutes ago.  I’ll have short video up on Pawlenty in a few minutes.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

So, you’re at a gathering of conservatives . . . and . .

Folks couldn’t be nicer to a guy bearing a badge identifying himself as a gay blogger?!?!?

They give a standing ovation to a man who opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and favors repeal of Don’t Talk/Don’t Tell?!?!?

How could that be!?!?!?

I thought our critics told us conservatives don’t like homosexuals and that preventing any forward motion on gay issues was anathema to their agenda, such that they’d blackball anyone who paid so much as lip service to such issues.

You shouldn’t get me trying to unravel such riddles when I’m trying to take a break from blogging.

Just a quick note as the night draws to a close here in DC. What an amazing first day at CPAC!! I’m walking around with a badge blaring “GayPatriot.org” and the folks here couldn’t be nicer!

Lots of GP readers are stopping me to say hello. Dan–this is the reason we have done this for 5 years!!!!

The Blogger Panel this afternoon was a blast and the room was packed.

And Chris & Jimmy are doing a kickass job at the GOProud booth in the exhibit hall.

Thanks CPAC for such a warm welcome!!

About two-and-one-half years ago when I submitted my “Concept Paper” outlining my dissertation, I anticipated that the second chapter would introduce the goddess Athene, starting with her Minoan-Mycenaean origins and leading up her guidance and support of the (male) hero in Greek myth.  Just over a year after that, I promised the chair of my dissertation committee that chapter on February 1, 2009.

Every time I started to write it, however, I didn’t seem ready.  Some perhaps might say it was laziness.  And perhaps it was.

Only when I saw the parallels between Sonny Corleone and Achilles, whose rage at the outset of the Iliad is about to ignite a civil war in the Achaean camp, did I realize that I couldn’t introduce the deity who restrains him until showing first the nature of his rage.  Achilles was not alone–in Greek myth or human society.  Other men have close to letting their anger getting the best of them before mastering it, while some never do.

In short, I had to show why  the owl-eyed goddess was necessary and to introduce the a problem she addresses in Greek myth (and hence culture) and so show her meaning to that society–and, by extension, to our own.  So, I added in a second chapter, an extended exegesis of the Bronze Age barroom brawl which begins the oldest of Greek epics.  A female friend dubbed it my “testosterone chapter.”  I submitted that two weeks ago.

And now, I’m about to submit the chapter I was supposed to have completed one year and 17 days ago.  It came together in a matter of days (I took four days off in the two-week period).  I had done most of the research (and all that I had used in the first week of writing) well before the initial “deadline.”  It came together not then when the research was complete, but after that new chapter was.

There is something in this, though I am, at this moment, perhaps not qualified competent to express it in a succinct catch phrase.  Perhaps, one of you can.  I struggled over something for nearly a year, only to find it falling into place in little over a week.

All that said, I’m pretty drained from all this writing and may take the whole weekend off from blogging.  I’ll see how I feel.  While Bruce blogs up at storm from CPAC on Friday, I’ll be at the Getty Library where I do my research.  And I won’t be bringing my laptop.

Well, never let a crisis go to waste may be the droning theme of the Obama Administration. But his water-carriers in the Old School Media, never wanting to be challenged as the least intellectually curious bunch in the room never lets a tragedy go without blaming it on the Tea Party movement (Unless, of course, there are ties to the Left wing. In that case, it’s “Move along! Nothing to see here!“)

Here we are, without even a sunset between us and the ranting suicide of an Austin lunatic (and having lived there, I can tell you, they’re countless), and the Leftist press has blamed Joseph Stark’s attack today on the IRS offices in the Texas capital on (wait for it…) the “the Tea Party movement”. While admitting that “[t]here’s no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf,” Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post nevertheless, concludes that: “after reading his 34-paragraph screed, [he is] struck by how [Stark's] alienation is similar to that we’re hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.”

Capehart then goes on to quote at length specifically chosen bits and pieces of Stark’s “manifesto” (available here, from Smoking Gun), to support his claim. Naturally, however, the link isn’t included in Capehart’s shoddy reporting, because it might have revealed to anybody who chose to read it many other facets of this lunatic’s (Stark’s, not Capehart’s) aggravation.

To wit: Stark specifically calls out the Catholic Church and organized religion in general, an obscure tax provision from 1986, the lack of universal health-care, Enron, the Justice Department, oh, and this guy who used to be president that all those tea-baggers hate, George W Bush!

In fact, poignantly missing from Capehart’s clearly political representation of Stark’s comments is the very end of the diatribe, printed in bold so that it couldn’t be missed:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Well, couldn’t be missed, that is, unless you had a political agenda and were trying to misrepresent what Stark was all about. Is this really what Capehart and his fellow morons at WaPo find to be “similar to that we’re hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement”?

Now, I’m not going to say that Stark was some sort of Leftist. He was clearly deranged and had his own personal motives that bled oddly into politics. But just remember, as these ugly reciminations will no doubt continue over the next few days who brought up his politics, and how dishonest they are about it.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)